Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: December 05, 2022 02:31PM
"In every infinitesimally small moment of our ultimately finite lives, we have an incomprehensible number of actions to chose from, the vast majority of which go unrecognized. An integrous person does the best they can under these infinitely complicated circumstances."
COMMENT: First, the only alternative actions that are morally relevant in any given decision context are those that are known and recognized by the actor as within his or her control. There are not an 'incomprehensible number of actions to choose from," as you suggest. In other words, one cannot escape the morality of one's actions by falling back on the claim that since actions and circumstances are overly complicated, one can and should simply do what they want to do. Sure, what is required morally may indeed be difficult to ascertain at times, but it is not because we are overwhelmed by choices. Rather, it is because the choices we do have, and recognize as such, are difficult in conjunction with what is easier, or what we might otherwise prefer to do.
Second, to suggest that all integrity requires is that a person "do the best they can," completely undermines all moral accountability from human actions by inviting moral relativism. Arguably, everyone can be said to be doing "the best they can," including the white supremist, current and past Mormon leaders, and even genocidal political figures, like Hitler. What matters in a moral context (if indeed we accept morality and are not amoral) is not whether one *subjectively* did the best they could, but whether such person did what was *objectively* morally 'right' given the knowledge and choices that they had in context with some moral standard(s) or principle(s) that are generally accepted and acknowledged.
__________________________________________
I can't assume that another's nuanced and personal approach to a faith transition is in any way a compromise to their integrity.
COMMENT: Can you assume that Joseph Smith's approach to his 'faith transition' compromised *his* integrity? Or how about the statements and writings of current Church leaders? We are able to make moral judgments, and do in fact make them, only because we *do* routinely make such assumptions, and thus *do* routinely apply moral judgments to a person's integrity.
If a Mormon (1) has found Mormonism to be fraudulent and harmful, and (2) believes as a general rule that one should distance oneself from fraudulent and harmful organizations, then it would seem to imply a burden to distance themselves from Mormonism, or to otherwise honestly assess why in their given circumstances morality requires a different choice. Merely citing a lack of convenience; or fear of repercussions, or concern about hurt feelings, sounds in general more like a convenient excuse, than a legitimate moral exception to the standard one has already acknowledged. But then one can never be sure of another's circumstances and motivations, unless they provide such information.
As the cliche says, "Nobody's perfect." Yet, we can acknowledge imperfection in ourselves and others, without throwing out the moral law itself, as you have inadvertently done here. Moral judgments are hard and dangerous and need to be made carefully. But still, it would seem that we need to retain the ability to say that some actions of others are morally wrong--absent extenuating circumstances. In that spirit, I am willing to say that a Mormon discovering that Mormonism is fraudulent and harmful is morally obligated to distance themselves from Mormonism--unless they have a morally sufficient reason (and not just a lame justification) to do otherwise. And if they don't, then by their own standards their integrity is compromised. But, again, nobody's perfect.